[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 151 (Monday, November 1, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11162-H11170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1714) to facilitate the use of electronic records and 
signatures in interstate or foreign commerce, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1714

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Electronic Signatures in 
     Global and National Commerce Act''.
  TITLE I--VALIDITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND SIGNATURES FOR COMMERCE

     SEC. 101. GENERAL RULE OF VALIDITY.

       (a) General Rule.--With respect to any contract, agreement, 
     or record entered into or provided in, or affecting, 
     interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding any statute, 
     regulation, or other rule of law, the legal effect, validity, 
     or enforceability of such contract, agreement, or record 
     shall not be denied--
       (1) on the ground that the contract, agreement, or record 
     is not in writing if the contract, agreement, or record is an 
     electronic record; or
       (2) on the ground that the contract, agreement, or record 
     is not signed or is not affirmed by a signature if the 
     contract, agreement, or record is signed or affirmed by an 
     electronic signature.
       (b) Autonomy of Parties in Commerce.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to any contract, agreement, 
     or record entered into or provided in, or affecting, 
     interstate or foreign commerce--
       (A) the parties to such contract, agreement, or record may 
     establish procedures or requirements regarding the use and 
     acceptance of electronic records and electronic signatures 
     acceptable to such parties;
       (B) the legal effect, validity, or enforceability of such 
     contract, agreement, or record shall not be denied because of 
     the type or method of electronic record or electronic 
     signature selected by the parties in establishing such 
     procedures or requirements; and
       (C) nothing in this section requires any party to use or 
     accept electronic records or electronic signatures.
       (2) Consent to electronic records.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a) and paragraph (1) of this subsection--
       (A) if a statute, regulation, or other rule of law requires 
     that a record be provided or made available to a consumer in 
     writing, that requirement shall be satisfied by an electronic 
     record if--
       (i) the consumer has separately and affirmatively consented 
     to the provision or availability of such record, or 
     identified groups of records that that include such record, 
     as an electronic record; and
       (ii) has not withdrawn such consent; and
       (B) if such statute, regulation, or other rule of law 
     requires that a record be retained, that requirement shall be 
     satisfied if such record complies with the requirements of 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (c)(1).
       (c) Retention of Contracts, Agreements, and Records.--
       (1) Accuracy and accessibility.--If a statute, regulation, 
     or other rule of law requires that a contract, agreement, or 
     record be in writing or be retained, that requirement is met 
     by retaining an electronic record of the information in the 
     contract, agreement, or record that--
       (A) accurately reflects the information set forth in the 
     contract, agreement, or record after it was first generated 
     in its final form as an electronic record; and
       (B) remains accessible, for the period required by such 
     statute, regulation, or rule of law, for later reference, 
     transmission, and printing.
       (2) Exception.--A requirement to retain a contract, 
     agreement, or record in accordance with paragraph (1) does 
     not apply to any information whose sole purpose is to enable 
     the contract, agreement, or record to be sent, communicated, 
     or received.
       (3) Originals.--If a statute, regulation, or other rule of 
     law requires a contract, agreement, or record to be provided, 
     available, or retained in its original form, or provides 
     consequences if the contract, agreement, or record is not 
     provided, available, or retained in its original form, that 
     statute, regulation, or rule of law is satisfied by an 
     electronic record that complies with paragraph (1).
       (4) Checks.--If a statute, regulation, or other rule of law 
     requires the retention of a check, that requirement is 
     satisfied by retention of an electronic record of all the 
     information on the front and back of the check in accordance 
     with paragraph (1).

     SEC. 102. AUTHORITY TO ALTER OR SUPERSEDE GENERAL RULE.

       (a) Procedure To Alter or Supersede.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), a State statute, regulation, or other rule of 
     law may modify, limit, or supersede the provisions of section 
     101 if such statute, regulation, or rule of law--
       (1)(A) constitutes an enactment or adoption of the Uniform 
     Electronic Transactions Act as reported to the State 
     legislatures by the National Conference of Commissioners on 
     Uniform State Laws; or
       (B) specifies the alternative procedures or requirements 
     for the use or acceptance (or both) of electronic records or 
     electronic signatures to establish the legal effect, 
     validity, or enforceability of contracts, agreements, or 
     records; and
       (2) if enacted or adopted after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, makes specific reference to this Act.
       (b) Limitations on Alteration or Supersession.--A State 
     statute, regulation, or other rule of law (including an 
     insurance statute, regulation, or other rule of law), 
     regardless of its date of enactment or adoption, that 
     modifies, limits, or supersedes section 101 shall not be 
     effective to the extent that such statute, regulation, or 
     rule--
       (1) discriminates in favor of or against a specific 
     technology, process, or technique of creating, storing, 
     generating, receiving, communicating, or authenticating 
     electronic records or electronic signatures;

[[Page H11163]]

       (2) discriminates in favor of or against a specific type or 
     size of entity engaged in the business of facilitating the 
     use of electronic records or electronic signatures;
       (3) is based on procedures or requirements that are not 
     specific or that are not publicly available; or
       (4) is otherwise inconsistent with the provisions of this 
     title.
       (c) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), a State 
     may, by statute, regulation, or rule of law enacted or 
     adopted after the date of enactment of this Act, require 
     specific notices to be provided or made available in writing 
     if such notices are necessary for the protection of the 
     safety or health of an individual consumer. A consumer may 
     not, pursuant to section 101(b)(2), consent to the provision 
     or availability of such notice solely as an electronic 
     record.

     SEC. 103. SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS.

       (a) Excepted Requirements.--The provisions of section 101 
     shall not apply to a contract, agreement, or record to the 
     extent it is governed by--
       (1) a statute, regulation, or other rule of law governing 
     the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or 
     testamentary trusts;
       (2) a statute, regulation, or other rule of law governing 
     adoption, divorce, or other matters of family law;
       (3) the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State, 
     other than sections 1-107 and 1-206 and Articles 2 and 2A;
       (4) any requirement by a Federal regulatory agency or self-
     regulatory organization that records be filed or maintained 
     in a specified standard or standards (including a specified 
     format or formats), except that nothing in this paragraph 
     relieves any Federal regulatory agency of its obligations 
     under the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (title XVII of 
     Public Law 105-277);
       (5) the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act; or
       (6) the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act.
       (b) Additional Exceptions.--The provisions of section 101 
     shall not apply to--
       (1) any contract, agreement, or record entered into between 
     a party and a State agency if the State agency is not acting 
     as a market participant in or affecting interstate commerce;
       (2) court orders or notices, or official court documents 
     (including briefs, pleadings, and other writings) required to 
     be executed in connection with court proceedings; or
       (3) any notice concerning--
       (A) the cancellation or termination of utility services 
     (including water, heat, and power);
       (B) default, acceleration, repossession, foreclosure, or 
     eviction, or the right to cure, under a credit agreement 
     secured by, or a rental agreement for, a primary residence of 
     an individual; or
       (C) the cancellation or termination of health insurance or 
     benefits or life insurance benefits (excluding annuities).

     SEC. 104. STUDY.

       (a) Followup Study.--Within 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, acting 
     through the Assistant Secretary for Communications and 
     Information, shall conduct an inquiry regarding any State 
     statutes, regulations, or other rules of law enacted or 
     adopted after such date of enactment pursuant to section 
     102(a), and the extent to which such statutes, regulations, 
     and rules comply with section 102(b).
       (b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     Congress regarding the results of such inquiry by the 
     conclusion of such 5-year period.

     SEC. 105. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) Electronic record.--The term ``electronic record'' 
     means a writing, document, or other record created, stored, 
     generated, received, or communicated by electronic means.
       (2) Electronic signature.--The term ``electronic 
     signature'' means information or data in electronic form, 
     attached to or logically associated with an electronic 
     record, and executed or adopted by a person or an electronic 
     agent of a person, with the intent to sign a contract, 
     agreement, or record.
       (3) Electronic.--The term ``electronic'' means of or 
     relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic, 
     optical, electromagnetic, or similar capabilities regardless 
     of medium.
       (4) Electronic agent.--The term ``electronic agent'' means 
     a computer program or an electronic or other automated means 
     used independently to initiate an action or respond to 
     electronic records in whole or in part without review by an 
     individual at the time of the action or response.
       (5) Record.--The term ``record'' means information that is 
     inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an 
     electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable 
     form.
       (6) Federal regulatory agency.--The term ``Federal 
     regulatory agency' means an agency, as that term is defined 
     in section 552(f) of title 5, United States Code, that is 
     authorized by Federal law to impose requirements by rule, 
     regulation, order, or other legal instrument.
       (7) Self-regulatory organization.--The term ``self-
     regulatory organization'' means an organization or entity 
     that is not a Federal regulatory agency or a State, but that 
     is under the supervision of a Federal regulatory agency and 
     is authorized under Federal law to adopt and administer rules 
     applicable to its members that are enforced by such 
     organization or entity, by a Federal regulatory agency, or by 
     another self-regulatory organization.
TITLE II--DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE PRODUCTS AND 
                                SERVICES

     SEC. 201. TREATMENT OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN INTERSTATE 
                   AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.

       (a) Inquiry Regarding Impediments to Commerce.--
       (1) Inquiries required.--Within 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary 
     for Communications and Information, shall complete an inquiry 
     to--
       (A) identify any domestic and foreign impediments to 
     commerce in electronic signature products and services and 
     the manners in which and extent to which such impediments 
     inhibit the development of interstate and foreign commerce;
       (B) identify constraints imposed by foreign nations or 
     international organizations that constitute barriers to 
     providers of electronic signature products or services; and
       (C) identify the degree to which other nations and 
     international organizations are complying with the principles 
     in subsection (b)(2).
       (2) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     Congress regarding the results of each such inquiry within 90 
     days after the conclusion of such inquiry. Such report shall 
     include a description of the actions taken by the Secretary 
     pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
       (b) Promotion of Electronic Signatures.--
       (1) Required actions.--The Secretary of Commerce, acting 
     through the Assistant Secretary for Communications and 
     Information, shall promote the acceptance and use, on an 
     international basis, of electronic signatures in accordance 
     with the principles specified in paragraph (2) and in a 
     manner consistent with section 101 of this Act. The Secretary 
     of Commerce shall take all actions necessary in a manner 
     consistent with such principles to eliminate or reduce, to 
     the maximum extent possible, the impediments to commerce in 
     electronic signatures, including those identified in the 
     inquiries under subsection (a) for the purpose of 
     facilitating the development of interstate and foreign 
     commerce.
       (2) Principles.--The principles specified in this paragraph 
     are the following:
       (A) Free markets and self-regulation, rather than 
     government standard-setting or rules, should govern the 
     development and use of electronic records and electronic 
     signatures.
       (B) Neutrality and nondiscrimination should be observed 
     among providers of and technologies for electronic records 
     and electronic signatures.
       (C) Parties to a transaction should be permitted to 
     establish requirements regarding the use of electronic 
     records and electronic signatures acceptable to such parties.
       (D) Parties to a transaction--
       (i) should be permitted to determine the appropriate 
     authentication technologies and implementation models for 
     their transactions, with assurance that those technologies 
     and implementation models will be recognized and enforced; 
     and
       (ii) should have the opportunity to prove in court or other 
     proceedings that their authentication approaches and their 
     transactions are valid.
       (E) Electronic records and electronic signatures in a form 
     acceptable to the parties should not be denied legal effect, 
     validity, or enforceability on the ground that they are not 
     in writing.
       (F) De jure or de facto imposition of standards on private 
     industry through foreign adoption of regulations or policies 
     with respect to electronic records and electronic signatures 
     should be avoided.
       (G) Paper-based obstacles to electronic transactions should 
     be removed.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the activities required by 
     this section, the Secretary shall consult with users and 
     providers of electronic signature products and services and 
     other interested persons.
       (d) Privacy.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     require the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary to take any 
     action that would adversely affect the privacy of consumers.
       (e) Definitions.--As used in this section, the terms 
     ``electronic record'' and ``electronic signature'' have the 
     meanings provided in section 104 of the Electronic Signatures 
     in Global and National Commerce Act.
   TITLE III--USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND SIGNATURES UNDER FEDERAL 
                             SECURITIES LAW

     SEC. 301. GENERAL VALIDITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND 
                   SIGNATURES.

       Section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78c) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) References to Written Records and Signatures.--
       ``(1) General validity of electronic records and 
     signatures.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) if a contract, agreement, or record (as defined in 
     subsection (a)(37)) is required by the securities laws or any 
     rule or regulation thereunder (including a rule or regulation 
     of a self-regulatory organization), and is required by 
     Federal or State statute, regulation, or other rule of law to 
     be in writing, the legal effect, validity, or enforceability 
     of such contract, agreement, or record shall not

[[Page H11164]]

     be denied on the ground that the contract, agreement, or 
     record is not in writing if the contract, agreement, or 
     record is an electronic record;
       ``(B) if a contract, agreement, or record is required by 
     the securities laws or any rule or regulation thereunder 
     (including a rule or regulation of a self-regulatory 
     organization), and is required by Federal or State statute, 
     regulation, or other rule of law to be signed, the legal 
     effect, validity, or enforceability of such contract, 
     agreement, or record shall not be denied on the ground that 
     such contract, agreement, or record is not signed or is not 
     affirmed by a signature if the contract, agreement, or record 
     is signed or affirmed by an electronic signature; and
       ``(C) if a broker, dealer, transfer agent, investment 
     adviser, or investment company enters into a contract or 
     agreement with, or accepts a record from, a customer or other 
     counterparty, such broker, dealer, transfer agent, investment 
     adviser, or investment company may accept and rely upon an 
     electronic signature on such contract, agreement, or record, 
     and such electronic signature shall not be denied legal 
     effect, validity, or enforceability because it is an 
     electronic signature.
       ``(2) Implementation.--
       ``(A) Regulations.--The Commission may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subsection 
     consistent with the public interest and the protection of 
     investors.
       ``(B) Nondiscrimination.--The regulations prescribed by the 
     Commission under subparagraph (A) shall not--
       ``(i) discriminate in favor of or against a specific 
     technology, method, or technique of creating, storing, 
     generating, receiving, communicating, or authenticating 
     electronic records or electronic signatures; or
       ``(ii) discriminate in favor of or against a specific type 
     or size of entity engaged in the business of facilitating the 
     use of electronic records or electronic signatures.
       ``(3) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subsection--
       ``(A) the Commission, an appropriate regulatory agency, or 
     a self-regulatory organization may require that records be 
     filed or maintained in a specified standard or standards 
     (including a specified format or formats) if the records are 
     required to be submitted to the Commission, an appropriate 
     regulatory agency, or a self-regulatory organization, 
     respectively, or are required by the Commission, an 
     appropriate regulatory agency, or a self-regulatory 
     organization to be retained; and
       ``(B) the Commission may require that contracts, 
     agreements, or records relating to purchases and sales, or 
     establishing accounts for conducting purchases and sales, of 
     penny stocks be manually signed, and may require such manual 
     signatures with respect to transactions in similar securities 
     if the Commission determines that such securities are 
     susceptible to fraud and that such fraud would be deterred or 
     prevented by requiring manual signatures.
       ``(4) Relation to other law.--The provisions of this 
     subsection apply in lieu of the provisions of title I of the 
     Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act to 
     a contract, agreement, or record (as defined in subsection 
     (a)(37)) that is required by the securities laws.
       ``(5) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection 
     applies to any rule or regulation under the securities laws 
     (including a rule or regulation of a self-regulatory 
     organization) that is in effect on the date of enactment of 
     the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 
     and that requires a contract, agreement, or record to be in 
     writing, to be submitted or retained in original form, or to 
     be in a specified standard or standards (including a 
     specified format or formats).
       ``(6) Definitions.--As used in this subsection:
       ``(A) Electronic record.--The term `electronic record' 
     means a writing, document, or other record created, stored, 
     generated, received, or communicated by electronic means.
       ``(B) Electronic signature.--The term ``electronic 
     signature'' means information or data in electronic form, 
     attached to or logically associated with an electronic 
     record, and executed or adopted by a person or an electronic 
     agent of a person, with the intent to sign a contract, 
     agreement, or record.
       ``(C) Electronic.--The term `electronic' means of or 
     relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic, 
     optical, electromagnetic, or similar capabilities regardless 
     of medium.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1714.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, the Committee on Commerce began an initiative 
to better understand the issues surrounding the Internet and electronic 
commerce. As part of this initiative, the committee held 11 hearings, 
focusing on a variety of electronic commerce issues.
  One of the issues that was raised repeatedly at the hearings was the 
need to provide enforceability to electronic signatures and electronic 
records. This issue is really quite simple: Does an electronically 
signed contract formed over the Internet have the same legal validity 
as a paper contract with a handwritten signature? Do electronic records 
have the same legal effect as a paper record?
  In most cases, the answer is either no or uncertain. The lack of 
legal certainty for electronic signatures and records has been cited 
for many in the e-commerce industry as a potential roadblock for the 
growth of electronic commerce. To address this issue, earlier this year 
I introduced H.R. 1714, the Electronic Signatures in Global and 
National Commerce Act, better known as E-SIGN.
  The purpose of this legislation is to provide a uniform nationwide 
standard for electronic signatures and electronic records. It creates a 
minimum Federal standard to promote interstate commerce, but E-SIGN 
recognizes the efforts of States to enact their own uniform laws.
  The bill we have before us today is the product of extensive 
research, careful examination of the issues, committee hearings and 
mark-ups, and extensive negotiations with our colleagues across the 
aisle and many other interested parties.
  Finally, it is a recognition of a positive step that Congress can 
take to help electronic commerce and the new economy continue to grow.
  Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, H.R. 1714 was first 
scheduled to be considered on the House floor 2 weeks ago. After 
discussions with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), I asked 
that this bill be withdrawn from consideration so that we could 
continue negotiations with him and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) over a number of outstanding issues.
  The amended version of the bill as before us today is the product of 
lengthy negotiations with the Committee on Commerce minority and with 
the Committee on the Judiciary. As of the middle of last week, I 
believed that we had reached a substantive agreement on the text we are 
debating today.
  Numerous changes were made to the text of the bill on a good-faith 
effort by me to address the legitimate concerns raised about the bill 
by some of our colleagues. These changes include adding a new opt-in 
provision to prevent consumers from being forced to use or accept 
electronic records. In addition, we added brand-new carve-outs 
prohibiting use of electronic records where those records are necessary 
for protection of a consumer's health, safety, and home.
  Unfortunately, all of this hard work has fallen victim to partisan 
politics. The administration, after publicly supporting the need for 
electronic signature legislation, has decided that they must deny 
Congressional Republicans a victory on this important technology 
legislation.
  It is my understanding that last week officials from the 
administration met with Members of the Democrat leadership in the House 
and persuaded some House Members to withdraw their support from H.R. 
1714, despite the agreement we had reached and after many days of 
negotiations. This is a shame.
  Since that time, many false and misleading charges have been made 
against H.R. 1714. The bill has come under attack by opponents of 
technology legislation who claim that H.R. 1714 would harm consumers. 
Mr. Speaker, these claims are absolutely false. The consumer provisions 
contained in H.R. 1714 keep in place all existing consumer protection 
laws and fully protect consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that such an important technology bill 
has come under attack. If we want the Internet and electronic commerce 
to continue to grow, we must pass H.R. 1714 providing the much needed 
legal

[[Page H11165]]

certainty to electronic signatures and records.
  H.R. 1714 is one of the most important high technology votes that 
this Congress will undertake. If my colleagues support the U.S. high-
tech industry, they will vote yes on this bill.
  A vote in support of H.R. 1714 is a vote in support of providing 
consumers with greater security and on-line transactions. It is a vote 
in support of allowing businesses to provide new and innovative 
services online.
  I urge all of my colleagues to reject baseless charges against the 
bill and support H.R. 1714.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that there really is not a gulf 
that exists between Democrats and Republicans over our support for 
electronic commerce. That is clearly something that the Committee on 
Commerce has been working on for the last 15 years. Every single bill 
has been able to be produced with near unanimity. It is clearly a 
tribute to our committee that we have been able to work together in 
that fashion.
  At the full committee level, we worked closely with the majority on a 
bill that dealt with electronic signatures; and we really worked 
together in a very bipartisan fashion. Since the full committee, the 
whole notion of the bill has been broadened out to include records as 
well, another issue area that is quite complex but resolvable and one 
in which I thought that we had made enormous progress. In fact, I know 
we had made enormous progress through the end of last week.
  It was clearly our intent to have worked with the majority to, once 
again, demonstrate our ability to work in a bipartisan fashion in this 
area. It was our hope that, at the end of the day, that would be the 
case.
  I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for including 
a provision allowing consumers to decide whether to opt in to receive 
contractual documents in electronic form. This opt-in provision goes a 
long way towards ensuring that consumers do not unwittingly forgo 
existing protections under State and Federal law.
  However, there were other issues that are also in play that include 
what kind of notice, whether it be conspicuous or otherwise, that 
consumers are entitled to under existing laws to receive these 
documents in writing.
  So, again, we are quite regretful on this side because we clearly 
would like to support a piece of legislation that advances these goals 
and could be passed on a bipartisan near-unanimous vote out here on the 
floor. But at this point I have to regretfully ask the Members to vote 
no.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous 
Materials of the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1714, the Electronic 
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.
  Commerce on the Internet is projected to grow exponentially to 
hundreds of billions of dollars in transactions in just a few years. 
Because the access to financial information has improved dramatically, 
the Internet poses significant opportunities for more Americans to 
become directly involved in the capital markets.
  The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, which I chair, 
held hearings on this bill and passed it through subcommittee 
unanimously. This bill will provide a critical cornerstone for the 
electronic financial transactions in the next century.
  The securities industry has responded to the new world of e-commerce 
with a proliferation of on-line trading brokers. Today, millions of 
Americans trade securities and manage their investments on-line. The 
cost savings to investors are significant. Full service brokerage can 
cost as much as $400 per trade. On-line brokerage costs less than $10 
per trade at many firms.
  The law needs to keep up with this significant technological 
development. H.R. 1714 brings legal certainty to electronic 
transactions. The legislation states that contracts shall not be deemed 
invalid because they are entered into electronically rather than the 
old-fashioned way, by handwritten signature.
  One goal of this legislation is to allow customers to open accounts 
on line without mandating a physical signature on a brokerage agreement 
and mailing it back to the broker. Title III of this legislation 
modernizes securities laws by providing that requirements for a writing 
can be satisfied by an electronic signature with just a click of a 
button.
  The legislation does not endorse any particular electronic 
authentication technology. We think that the market is the best place 
to decide that.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for his 
vision and introducing this critical legislation that will benefit the 
future of American economy. This is not just a bill that will benefit 
the American companies that develop new technology, it will also help 
American businesses, large and small, that use technology to develop 
and grow their business and provide new and innovative service to 
consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this sound and worthwhile 
legislation, one of the key pieces of technology legislation this 
Congress will consider.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I, without equivocation, rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  I obviously understand the problem that the committee was trying to 
solve and the necessity to deal with electronic or e-commerce, and to 
try to provide the legal framework which would be workable for such 
transactions to go forward. That is an imperative that needs to be 
addressed in terms of this Congress and I am sure in subsequent 
Congresses. The fact of the matter is, though, that this bill, while 
being dealt with in the Committee on Commerce in the House and the 
Committee on the Judiciary, there was a reluctance to in fact provide 
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services with an opportunity to 
look at the legislation.
  That in and of itself would be understandable if in fact the issues 
dealt with, in regards to consumer and consumer safeguards, were in 
fact properly dealt with in this legislation. This is not a 
jurisdictional fight on my part. In fact, I was quite surprised to see 
this bill on the calendar a couple of weeks ago. My impression was that 
it was a very narrow bill that dealt with some transactions and tried 
to, in fact, provide legal sanctity to an electronic signature, which, 
as I said, makes some sense. But in the process of going forward and 
reviewing the bill more closely, my recognition and understanding of 
this bill grew that it encompasses much more than simply an electronic 
signature.
  In fact, this legislation would undermine some of the fundamental 
consumer laws that we have that relate to financial institutions and 
agreements, such as truth in lending, so an individual knows what his 
proper amount of interest is, and he would receive detailed 
information. They could opt for that electronically and, thereafter, 
that would be sufficient. Provided that that consumer did not make any 
other choice under this bill, they would never receive this as a paper 
document, in fact, it would only be an electronic record.
  There are all sorts of problems that could go down. The assumption 
here is that someone is going to have a computer and be on the Internet 
forever; that the format is not going to change; that the printer 
works; that there is paper in the printer. There are many other 
assumptions that simply do not fit in terms of what the consequence 
would be with regards to consumers.
  I have already mentioned truth in lending. The Real Estate Sales 
Practices Act, RESPA law is another one, the Real Estate Sales 
Practices Act, where an individual gets a preliminary set of documents 
that estimates what the costs are going to be for closing when a home 
is purchased, and then a

[[Page H11166]]

final set of documents at that closing. Again, this paperwork is 
absolutely paramount for people to understand some of the most 
important transactions that they become involved with with regards to 
their financial affairs.
  I note that there are some provisions in the law that are accepted, 
and some opportunity for States to step in after this bill is enacted, 
provided they pass a whole series of legislation or laws that address 
specifically some of the concerns that they now have in force and 
effect as State laws. The consequence, of course, is all subjected to 
the fact that any interpretation of differences between having things 
on paper or having an electronic form could be subject to and 
considered discrimination under the Federal law that is being written 
and proposed on this floor today; so that this State reservation is 
much depreciated if in fact it exists at all under this measure.
  So the consequences may very well be, in some cases, meaningless 
under that interpretation of the law. Furthermore, of course, the 
States themselves, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
Office of State-Federal Relations, has issued a strong objection to 
this bill; that it preempts State consumer protections in contract law, 
just as I feel it preempts and does not treat properly some of the 
Federal laws that occur with regards to truth in lending and RESPA and 
many other laws that are in force and effect that represent safeguards 
and information and it is imperative that consumers have such 
information.
  Of course, the out here is that consumers may in fact ``opt out,'' or 
``opt in'' to suggest that they do not want this information in a paper 
form. But I would suggest to my colleagues that the relationship 
between a financial institution granting a loan, granting a mortgage, 
and that of a consumer is not exactly equal. That is to say when I go 
in for a loan, I am trying to keep that banker happy so that he would 
make that loan to me. I think it is pretty well understood that in 
order to do that, we want to make it as convenient for the banker and 
perhaps for ourselves at that moment. But that moment of convenience 
may well result in a lack of understanding with regards to what the 
consequences and the costs of these transactions would be to those 
individual consumers.
  And, of course, throughout this there is this ability of the 
individual to waive his or her rights with regards to paper 
transactions and records in this measure. No paper record, no 
documentation, I think that that is folly. I think it is a big mistake.
  I think that based on where we are at today, with the administration 
being opposed to this bill, many, many consumer groups voicing their 
opposition to it, including the National Consumer Law Center, the 
Consumer Federation of America, groups like the United Auto Workers, 
Consumer Union, Consumer Action, U.S. PIRG, the National Conference of 
State Legislatures, as I mentioned, the National Center on Poverty Law, 
and many others opposed to this, I think to bring a bill up like this 
on suspension is to make, in a sense, a mockery of the importance of 
the subject matter and the ability of Members to shape and form 
legislation of this import to the American consumer and to our 
constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generous yielding of time 
to me, and I urge opposition to this bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bliley) has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Northern Virginia (Mr. Davis), the original cosponsor of the bill.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong 
support for H.R. 1714. As an original cosponsor, I am pleased to stand 
here today with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), 
to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of legislation that I think is 
the critical first step in reconciling our legal system with modern day 
technology. The E-SIGN bill is essential to fostering the continued 
growth of electronic commerce that is propelling America's economy and 
our prosperity in the Information Age.
  Electronic commerce has been growing at a tremendous pace, with the 
number of Americans with access to the Internet increasing nearly 900 
percent since early 1993. In 1998, electronic commerce generated more 
than $300 billion in U.S. revenue and was responsible for over 1.2 
billion jobs as of 1998. One estimate places the dollar volume of 
business-to-business electronic commerce in 1998 at $27.4 billion, and 
the projected volume for 1999 is $64.8 billion. Those numbers are 
expected to quadruple in the next 2 years alone. Consumer on-line sales 
have reached more than $7 billion this year and are expected to exceed 
$40 billion by 2002. If the trend continues, it is likely these 
predictions are conservative.
  The need for legal certainty and uniformity of laws is compelling if 
we are to encourage the continued growth of electronic commerce. One of 
the biggest barriers to the explosion of electronic commerce as the 
marketplace of the 21st century is the lack of certainty surrounding 
the legal acceptance of electronic signatures used in conducting on-
line contracts or agreements. With the Internet as the communications 
network of the future, increasing its use depends on developing and 
retaining consumer and business confidence in this unique problem.
  Although 44 States have already enacted legislation that would 
recognize digital signatures, the differences among these States and 
the lack of legislation in others are an impediment to the growth of e-
commerce because many parties are unwilling to risk entering into 
contracts on line without the certainty that those signatures are 
legally binding nationally. H.R. 1714 establishes a single standard for 
the acceptance of electronic signatures and records and will give both 
businesses and consumers the same confidence in the legal validity of 
an on-line agreement that they have today in a written, binding 
agreement signed by two or more contracting parties.
  Another critical feature of this legislation is the balance it 
strikes between encouraging growth in electronic commerce and 
minimizing the role that the Federal Government plays in the 
marketplace. In addition to the gap this measure fills in establishing 
a uniform standard, what is equally important is that this legislation 
does not entrench specific electronic signature technologies by 
dictating what methods will be used for verifying and validating 
digital signatures and records. Instead, the E-SIGN bill allows the 
parties to set their own procedures for using electronic signatures and 
electronic records in interstate commerce. As a result, when the future 
brings new technologies it will be the marketplace, not government 
regulations, that drives the development of those that succeed.
  A vote for this legislation is a vote for technology and a vote for 
ensuring the evolution of Internet commerce and the vitality of the 
American economy. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take a second, if I can, to respond to some of 
the charges coming from the other side that this legislation contains 
anti-consumer provisions.
  I have heard that this preempts existing consumer protection laws; I 
have heard that this legislation will force consumers into electronic 
transactions; I have heard this will discriminate against consumers 
that do not have computer access. These claims are false.
  First, consumers are absolutely free to choose or not choose to enter 
into electronic transactions. This bill clearly states that nothing 
requires any party to use or accept electronic records or electronic 
signatures. This bill simply offers consumers the option, by mutual 
consent, to use electronic transactions should both parties determine 
that to be their preference.
  If a consumer does choose to conduct an on-line transaction, that 
consumer is protected by the underlying Federal or State laws governing 
that transaction. If a State law requires that a notice or disclosure 
be made in writing, then those traditional writings must continue to be 
delivered from the consumer. Nothing in this bill will nullify such 
existing State consumer protection laws.
  For example, if a law requires that a consumer be provided a copy of 
a warranty when purchasing an appliance,

[[Page H11167]]

that consumer has to receive a copy of that warranty, whether that 
consumer is at a shopping mall or on line. This bill does absolutely 
nothing to alter this long-established principle.
  However, before a consumer can receive an electronic copy of a 
warranty, a consumer has to separately and affirmatively consent to 
receive that document electronically. That is, a consumer specifically 
must approve of receiving electronic documents in that portion of a 
contract or agreement, telling the consumer that documents he or she 
should receive electronically may not be buried in the fine print.

                              {time}  1530

  If the consumer wants to receive a traditional paper warranty, he is 
absolutely entitled to under this rule and under this bill. But if a 
consumer consents to receive such documents electronically, as I think 
many of my constituents would like to do, that does not mean that they 
may never return to receiving paper documents should they so wish. A 
consumer could withdraw the consent to electronic documents at any 
time.
  There are two main subsections in the consent portion of the bill 
that explicitly constitute a consumers assent in the bill. One of these 
critical subsections mandates that once the consumer withdrawals his 
consent to receive documents electronically, the materials must be 
delivered in the traditional paper writing.
  Finally, H.R. 1714 requires that electronically delivered documents 
must accurately reflect the information agreed to at the time of the 
transaction. In addition, any electronic copy of a contract or document 
must be able to be printed or saved for future use by a consumer.
  In sum, the allegations that H.R. 1714 contains anti-consumer ideas 
are unfounded. We have worked very hard throughout the process to reach 
consensus with both sides of the aisle and are confident that this bill 
represents a solid balance between protecting consumers and entering 
into agreements in the electronic arena.
  Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important for consumers to have safety, 
security and privacy in their online transactions. If consumers do not 
feel comfortable using this new technology, they will abandon it.
  I believe that the consumer provisions of H.R. 1714 will help 
consumers to feel comfortable when conducting online transactions. They 
will have the information they need to make an informed decision, and 
they will have the right to accept, if they so choose, important 
documentation in electronic format.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation 
that will help to promote the growth of electronic commerce and at the 
same time protect consumers in online transactions.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair how much time 
is remaining on either side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The gentlemen have 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to include for the Record the 
Statement of Administration Policy on this bill. They oppose it in 
specific particulars, and I would like at this point for it to be 
included in the Record.

 H.R. 1714.--Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of the 
     revised version of H.R. 1714, the ``Electronic Signatures in 
     Global and National Commerce Act.'' The Administration 
     believes that electronic commerce can provide substantial 
     benefits to consumers, and seeks to foster the expansion of 
     this medium. Secure electronic signatures can play an 
     important role in this area, and the Administration supports 
     their development and dissemination. However, the 
     Administration also believes strongly that individuals should 
     have no fewer consumer protections in the on-line world than 
     they do in other forms of commerce. That disparity could 
     undermine consumer confidence in electronic commerce, and 
     impede the growth of this important new medium of trade. 
     While some improvements have been made, H.R. 1714 still goes 
     well beyond what is necessary to facilitate electronic 
     commerce, and unnecessarily deprives consumers of important 
     protections.
       The Administration believes that Federal legislation is 
     appropriate to ensure the validity of electronic agreements 
     entered into by private parties under State law before the 
     States have an opportunity to enact the Uniform Transactions 
     Act (UETA). We therefore support the bill's provisions 
     affirming the legal validity of contracts that are 
     memorialized and signed in electronic form.
       The Administration also believes, as noted, that consumers 
     must be granted the same protections on-line that they 
     currently receive off-line under existing laws and 
     regulations. Unfortunately, many Americans today do not enjoy 
     reliable and regular access to the Internet. To ensure that 
     an electronic disclosure will have the same impact upon 
     consumers on-line as paper disclosure has now, regulators 
     must have the authority to make sure that electronic notices 
     and disclosures will actually reach and be understood and 
     retained by consumers. H.R. 1714 also would allow businesses 
     to condition credit or other services on a consumers' consent 
     to notices or disclosures--even when the consumer is 
     incapable of receiving or retaining them. The Administration 
     strongly objects to this bill on several grounds.
       First, the bill purports to protect consumers by requiring 
     them to ``separately and affirmatively'' consent to the use 
     of electronic records. Unfortunately, this provision requires 
     just an additional paragraph of small print in the form 
     contract prepared by a business. The notice to the consumer 
     need not be conspicuous, the consumer need not be told of his 
     or her right to obtain information in the form required by 
     law, and the consumer need not be told which specific records 
     would be affected. More fundamentally, these current law 
     notice and disclosure requirements were created to protect 
     vulnerable consumers allowing businesses to redefine the 
     protections based on ``consent''--something that businesses 
     may not do with respect to paper transactions--is thus an 
     open invitation to consumer deception on a broad scale.
       Second, the scope of the bill's preemption is unjustifiably 
     broad. Neither the States nor Federal regulators will have 
     any ability to eliminate the abuses that may occur when 
     electronic records are used. With respect to Federal 
     regulators, the bill by its terms eliminates all such 
     authority. With respect to the States, the bill's grant of 
     authority is illusory because it prohibits (in section 
     102(b)(4)) any State action inconsistent with the bill's 
     provisions, leaving the States powerless to curb any abuse 
     that the bill itself fails to prevent.
       Third, the bill overrides all Federal and State laws or 
     regulations concerning notices necessary for the protection 
     of safety, shelter or health (there is a narrow exception for 
     notices relating to the termination of utility services, 
     eviction or foreclosure of a primary residence, or the 
     termination of health or life insurance). Although the States 
     are permitted to reinstate such regulations, the bill creates 
     a gap in protection--in the critical area of safety and 
     health--for the several years that inevitably will elapse 
     before these rules can be reenacted. Federal agencies have no 
     power to reinstate any Federal notice and disclosure 
     requirements needed to protect health, safety, or shelter.
       Fourth, the bill recognizes the importance of preserving 
     Federal regulations by requiring certain entities (including 
     banks and other financial institutions) to file or maintain 
     records in a specified form, but fails to ensure that 
     regulators' safety and soundness authority will continue to 
     allow the establishment of minimum standards for computer 
     security and interoperability. The bill also preempts all 
     State laws and regulations regarding the maintenance of 
     records. As a result, entities regulated under state law, 
     such as insurance companies, will be able to decide for 
     themselves how to maintain information, thereby undermining 
     regulators' ability to ensure the soundness of these 
     institutions and to detect violations of the laws and 
     regulations governing them.
       Fifth, the bill contains a provision (adding section 
     3(h)(1) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) that appears 
     to preempt State and Federal record and signature 
     requirements, including those applicable to forms required 
     under Federal and State tax laws and regulatory statutes such 
     as ERISA (existing Federal securities law requirements are 
     exempted from this broad waiver). This means that the 
     securities industry would have the right to force Federal and 
     State agencies to accept electronically signed documents 
     immediately, even if, for example, the agency has not yet 
     implemented an electronic filing system. Title I of H.R. 1714 
     appears to preserve filing requirements in Federal 
     regulations (but not statutes) and in State laws, and we see 
     no justification for establishing a special preferential rule 
     for the securities industry.
       Finally, the bill contains other technical and drafting 
     flaws likely to create the very confusion that it is supposed 
     to eliminate.

  Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting point that we have reached in 
the history of electronic commerce. We, in negotiating in good faith 
over the last month, had reached a point where most of the good 
players, most of the honest business people in the electronic commerce 
world had signed off or were close to signing off on protections for 
consumers.
  Most of them know, all of the good business people know, that the 
continued growth of electronic commerce is not contingent upon the 
ability of businesses online to be able to perpetrate fraud on 
consumers. They know that.
  There are some, of course, that like to hide in cyberspace, like to 
disappear into this veil of spectrum or fiber optic that makes it very 
difficult for the legal authorities to be able to track them down when 
they have harmed consumers. And it is at those particular entities that 
we would be targeting any consumer protections.

[[Page H11168]]

  But again, let it be known that we had reached pretty near agreement 
with most of the major players in the industry across the board on 
these consumer protections. And that is really all it was, it is to 
create the same kind of a balance in cyberspace that exists in the real 
world, the same kind of comfort level that people would have to go 
online with their money, with their credit card to know that they would 
be paid respect by merchants online in terms of the notification, the 
records, the confidence that an individual could have.
  My hope is that, as we move forward, we will be able to work with the 
majority once again and with the outside parties towards establishing 
that balance.
  I am afraid that the administration is today indicating that they 
would be likely not to support, even to veto, this legislation in its 
present form.
  I would prefer to be negotiating without the administration around. 
We do it on a bipartisan basis. We produce legislation. Hopefully, that 
is the way in which the bill will proceed from this point on.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1714, the 
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. I commend 
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his work on this 
important legislation.
  There are still differing opinions between various camps and 
committees, but I commend the chairman and the House leadership for 
bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, electronic commerce is expanding exponentially. The 
Commerce Department recently estimated that retail sales might exceed 
$40 billion by the year 2002 and that all electronic commerce, 
including business-to-business activity, may exceed $1.3 trillion in 
the next couple of years.
  This legislation embraces the model State law called the Uniform 
Electronic Transactions Act, UETA for short. Until all 50 States can 
act to approve UETA, parallel Federal legislation must be adopted to 
fill the commercial gap. It must be possible to sign an agreement 
electronically with the confidence which has historically been given to 
handwritten signature.
  UETA and H.R. 1714 embrace the same principles: first, uniformity 
across State lines in order to provide for reliability and 
predictability on the part of businesses and consumers alike; second, 
technological neutrality to allow for the development of new and more 
efficient and less costly delivery systems; third, party autonomy so 
that the parties to agreements can decide between themselves how they 
wish to verify or enforce electronic agreements just as they now do 
with traditional commercial settings.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1714 is minimalist in its effects and merely 
provides for the legal validity of electronic signatures under 
conditions as agreed to by the parties and permitted under State law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my very good friends from Massachusetts 
and Minnesota that I know their hearts are in the right place and they 
want to do what they consider to be the right thing for consumers. But 
I rise in support of this bill.
  A number of things have to be underscored. For one, the signature is 
only valid if it is done by mutual consent. Both parties have to agree. 
Number two, there is legal recourse in the event of any kind of 
fraudulent action. Number three, we have all the accountability that we 
have really under hard-cover signatures. Number four, it is already 
being done.
  So the real question is, do we act now ahead of the curve, or do we 
wait and play catch up just as we did with financial services 
modernization, which came more than 10 years after the entire financial 
services industry had already modernized.
  I remember when I was on the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services a decade ago looking at the possibility for modernizing the 
financial services industry. We knew it was going to happen anyway and 
we should try to influence the process on the side of consumers.
  But, no, what we have done over the last 10 years is to stand in the 
way of what was considered modernization, and so the industry 
modernized itself. And now we finally have a financial services 
modernization bill after the fact. And that is what is going to happen 
with digitalized signatures. We can stay by the sidelines, watch it 
happen, and then after the fact ratify it as though we played a role. I 
think we could play a constructive role at the beginning by authorizing 
this legislation now.
  The fact is that we have now more than half of the households in 
every metropolitan area that are online. In Northern Virginia 60 
percent of all the households are online. They are doing these 
transactions. They ought to be. They are legal. We ought to ratify it. 
We ought to be really in front instead of behind the curve. And that is 
why I support the bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I hope both the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who just spoke 
will listen.
  This is a remarkable exercise. We have been discussing with our good 
friends on the majority side to find out what was in the legislation on 
Friday. We thought we were very close to an understanding.
  We find today that the bill has been changed. We find that it is 
quite different than it was the other day. We find that consumer 
protections have been removed, reduced without any consultation with 
the minority.
  This is most curious. I am not sure whether it can be called good 
faith or not. Normally I would not. I can understand the gentleman 
being enthused because perhaps he has constituents who likes this. But 
I happen to like the truth, and I happen to like fair dealing and I 
like to know what I am doing.
  If the gentleman knows what he is doing, then he should by all means 
support this. He does not, and I do not. And I am not convinced that 
the majority knows.
  I am convinced of one thing, that it is bad practice and it does not 
comport with the traditions of the House of Representatives to 
negotiate, come to general understandings, and then to repudiate those 
understandings by changing without discussion with the other side. That 
is what has happened here.
  There is not such enormous haste that we have to vote for something 
on a suspension of the rules when we had seen the arrangements made 
changed; when we have seen consumer protections eroded, eradicated, and 
reduced; and when we have seen a situation where we are told, take it 
or leave it, fellows, they have got a two-thirds vote, and they cannot 
have any opportunity to make any changes in the content of the 
legislation.
  That is the issue before us. The issue is should we support the 
majority in this high-handed fashion or should we proceed to say, 
fellows, we will go for this and we will work together on a piece of 
legislation which, in fact, reflects honest negotiation on a matter in 
which the two sides are generally in agreement.
  My consult to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, Democratic 
Members, and indeed to my friends on the other side is let us take 
enough time to, first of all, know what we are doing. Second of all, 
let us take enough time to deal fairly with each other. Third of all, 
if we are going to go ahead and do something which involves significant 
legislative action, let us deal fairly with the consuming public. None 
of those things have been done here.
  Now, I do not know whether this is haste or whether it is bad faith. 
I do know that this does not reflect the kind of behavior that I always 
thought the House of Representatives should practice. And I do not 
think that this represents the kind of conduct that reflects well on 
this body or on the majority side.

[[Page H11169]]

  I am certainly happy to conclude this matter in an honorable and a 
proper fashion. I have to say that the way in which this is handled 
does not give evidence of that kind of behavior.
  We do not know what is in this legislation. The majority of the 
Members who are on that side do not know what is in the legislation. It 
is not because we have not worked diligently with the majority, but it 
is simply because the majority has chosen in midstride to change the 
way the legislation is done.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding to me so that I can explain to him that I have 
no contributor who has ever asked me to support this legislation, just 
to clarify for the Record in response to your earlier implication.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not talking about 
that.
  Now if the gentleman could tell me he knows what he is doing, I will 
be quite comforted in his assertions to the body.
  The simple fact of the matter is this is not the kind of practice 
that reflects credit on the House of Representatives.
  I am urging my colleagues on this side to reject this legislation. We 
will be happy to negotiate with our friends on the Republican side and 
come to some conclusion. But negotiation does not mean bringing this 
thing up in this kind of haste, not without anyone having proper 
notice, without anybody having proper understanding, and with 
proceedings, which have gone on somewhere, where the matter has been 
changed so that it does not reflect the negotiations which were going 
on earlier.
  Now, it may be the Republicans are in desperate haste to get out of 
here. That is just possible. Frankly, if I were doing the kind of job 
they are doing, I would be in desperate haste to get out of here, too, 
because I know there are people back home just wanting me to explain to 
them just what in the name of common sense I had been doing in 
Washington while I was supposedly representing their interests.
  In a nutshell, this matter should be rejected. We have time enough to 
come back and consider it under more favorable circumstances and under 
a process that reflects more credit on the House.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Conyers), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the comments of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House of this 
body.
  Of course we would all like to see passage of an e-commerce bill that 
would promote commercial transactions over the Internet. But an e-
commerce bill should not be a grab bag for insurance, financial, or 
other special interests to hurt consumers. I think that is the 
underlying discussion that has been developed here today.
  It should not be a vehicle for Congress to tell the States that all 
of a sudden they are unable to enact contract law on their own in the 
area of e-commerce. Consumer laws requiring notice and disclosure in 
writing are being undermined.
  This measure would allow unsavory merchants to trick consumers into 
clicking away many of their rights under the laws.

                              {time}  1545

  The measure, H.R. 1714, stands for the proposition that States are 
unable to enact their own laws and may not reinstate many additional 
consumer protections. It further undermines key Federal and State 
regulatory requirements to prevent fraud and abuse. And so an e-
commerce that would be a win-win situation for all, that should make it 
easier for consumers to buy goods and services more quickly from a 
broader group of businesses and should allow businesses new methods of 
reaching more people, doing all these things, frankly, is not a hard 
bill to write.
  But the bill that the Commerce majority seeks to put on the floor at 
this time is not such a bill. Rather than a carefully drawn bill that 
balances the equities, the bill unnecessarily undermines key laws that 
protect consumers and prevent fraud, all to please the special 
interests.
  Join me in a negative vote on this measure.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I just wanted to point out to my colleague from Virginia when he 
commented that States can come back and reenact all these laws that are 
in fact set aside by this measure, that in fact there are provisions in 
the bill that deal with discrimination and other factors which are 
screens which may well prevent States from reasserting such 
requirements and printed documentation.
  I would just point out that there is no assurance in this bill that 
the consumer who even has a computer is on the Internet. Once you send 
a message out on the Internet like a car warranty recall, the fact is, 
for brakes or some other major problem, you have no way of knowing 
whether or not that in fact that has been received by an adult or even 
the household intended. We know, today, they find us when we have 
recalls on the automobiles and that is an important factor and points 
out the practical unworkable aspect of this bills policy. These are 
just some of the many, many problems that have not been thought through 
with this bill. I think it is improper to consider this in this 
particular suspension format. If we do not understand all aspects of 
it, that is because it has been a moving target for the last 2 weeks as 
my colleagues well know. It deserves richly to be defeated today, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I do so again to urge my colleagues reluctantly to oppose this bill. 
It does not have the balance which it needs in order to ensure that 
while we advance the electronic commerce revolution which is 
transforming the American economy, that simultaneously we are able to 
deal with the sinister side of cyberspace, we are able to deal with 
those that would engage in the same kind of anticonsumer activity that 
we have passed laws in our country over the last 30 years to protect 
against in the real world. And so the recommendation that we have to 
give is to vote ``no'' on this bill at this time but with the promise 
that we are going to work on a bipartisan basis to work out something 
which is deserving of the support of every Member of the House.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First I would like to say I am sorry the gentleman from Michigan is 
not on the floor, but we pulled this bill 2 weeks ago in order to work 
with the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Michigan. 
The changes that were made in the bill were made to accommodate their 
concerns. I thought on Friday that we had pretty much agreement. 
However, the White House came down and met with the minority leader, 
and the ranking member then announced that he could not support the 
bill. But to say that we have not worked in good faith is a gross 
misrepresentation. We have done everything we could to work. But we 
only have a few days left in this session and we wanted to get this 
bill moving.
  I cannot understand why the White House would come down and object at 
this time. The bill has not passed over in the Senate. Then we have got 
to go to conference. There is plenty of time to work out any concerns 
that they might have.
  But let me also point out the supporters of this legislation: The 
Business Software Alliance, the Securities Industry Association, the 
American Council of Life Insurers, Information Technology Association 
of America, Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications 
Industry Association, National Retail Federation, National Association 
of Manufacturers, Charles Schwab and Company, DLJ Direct, Investment 
Company Institute, America Online, Microsoft, Ford Motor Credit, IBM, 
EquiFax, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I might add they have 
targeted this vote, and a host of others. It is purely voluntary as my 
good friend and original cosponsor the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis)

[[Page H11170]]

pointed out between consenting parties. Nobody is being coerced into 
accepting anything. All of the consumer laws are protected.
  I ask the Members to support this legislation.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today the House is taking an important step 
to bring our Nation's laws in line with the explosive growth of E-
commerce.
  In 1997 my office was the first to establish a virtual district 
office in the Congress. I quickly realized my constituents were not 
permitted to provide their authorization for any casework with an 
electronic signature.
  Subsequently, I introduced the first piece of legislation addressing 
the issue of electronic signatures during the 105th Congress and 
succeeded in passing this bill into law. The legislation requires 
Federal agencies to make Government forms available online and accept a 
person's electronic signature on these forms.
  Following on this success, I introduced a bill in the 106th Congress 
to expand the legality of electronic signatures to the private sector. 
Today, we're voting on a bill that Chairman Bliley introduced which 
attempts to accomplish the same goal as H.R. 1320.
  The Congress must ensure that there are no roadblocks impeding the 
growth of E-commerce. E-commerce is expected to generate over $1.3 
trillion worth of business by 2003. Our laws should not impede this 
staggering growth so we must act to bridge the gap between now and the 
time when every State has passed an updated form of the Uniform State 
Law Code.
  This legislation encourages States to pass a uniform law so that our 
Nation's consumers and businesses will not have to face 50 different 
sets of regulations to engage in E-commerce. I am concerned about the 
electronic records provisions in this bill, and hope that with further 
work, these concerns will be ironed out by conferees.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1714. Our 
Nation's economy will be the beneficiary.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton of Texas). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1714, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________